I've got something up my sleeve (Bitcoin related), but first I need to read more information on genetically modified organism (GMO), hence this thread. Hopefully a lively discussion, whether pro, con or indifferent, will ensue. Yes, a myriad of information is readily available to me via the rest of the internet, of which I've read and viewed my fair share, but I desire to learn more from like-minded individuals like yourselves.

Even in the event that an attacker gains more than 50% of the network's
computational power, only transactions sent by the attacker could be
reversed or double-spent. The network would not be destroyed.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.

Don't worry! This will have nothing to do modifying anything related to the mining, protocol, etc. of Bitcoin. Not to let the perverted (may be the wrong word) cat out of the bag, I have an existing company (NEW) in mind, wanting to introduce them to, then incorporate Bitcoin into one (or more) of their product line(s). They are a food company that is anti-GMO, hence wanting to get more up to speed about GMOs. I think this could turn out to be a really "sweet" marriage of them and Bitcoin.

Damn. I thought this was going to be a scheme to encode bitcoin URIs in the DNA of gentically-modified food products, thereby removing the need for price tags once hardware wallets start incorporating DNA sequencers. I mean, this is the 21st century after all, we're supposed to have cool stuff like this by now. This future never fails to disappoint me.

My first job actually coding as a programmer was for a company working in the field. You could fax them an order, with a string like AGGGCTATCGGTACG and they would produce it and ship it out. Pretty cool seeing a desktop machine with bottles labelled A, C, G, T that fed into it. Anyway, I learned a lot about genetic engineering there - I actually wrote the code that analyzed and displayed the enzyme analysis (showing where each particular enzyme would break the chain).

The first thing I would say is that if someone says something like "they're putting fish genes in plants", the person has no clue and is probably talking FUD. Genes are what make organisms, not the other way around. Saying "fish gene" is the equivalent of saying "fish carbon atom" or "fish water molecule".

Genetic engineering is basically doing the same thing we've been doing for millenia only with more understanding and ability to test. I'm all for genetic modification - in general.

That being said, corporations are using the patent system to screw things up. I'm sure we've all heard about the evils of Monsanto and how they're attacking farmers inappropriately. If not, do some searching.

I'm all for labeling. IMHO there should be a private organization to do that, like for Kosher foods. We know we can't trust any government to do it properly - look at how they've screwed up 'organic' - allowing certain chemicals and up to certain concentrations that any reasonable person would find unacceptable for that designation.

My first job actually coding as a programmer was for a company working in the field. You could fax them an order, with a string like AGGGCTATCGGTACG and they would produce it and ship it out. Pretty cool seeing a desktop machine with bottles labelled A, C, G, T that fed into it. Anyway, I learned a lot about genetic engineering there - I actually wrote the code that analyzed and displayed the enzyme analysis (showing where each particular enzyme would break the chain).

The first thing I would say is that if someone says something like "they're putting fish genes in plants", the person has no clue and is probably talking FUD. Genes are what make organisms, not the other way around. Saying "fish gene" is the equivalent of saying "fish carbon atom" or "fish water molecule".

Genetic engineering is basically doing the same thing we've been doing for millenia only with more understanding and ability to test. I'm all for genetic modification - in general.

That being said, corporations are using the patent system to screw things up. I'm sure we've all heard about the evils of Monsanto and how they're attacking farmers inappropriately. If not, do some searching.

I'm all for labeling. IMHO there should be a private organization to do that, like for Kosher foods. We know we can't trust any government to do it properly - look at how they've screwed up 'organic' - allowing certain chemicals and up to certain concentrations that any reasonable person would find unacceptable for that designation.

This is pretty much my opinion. There are societal implications of GMO food but healthwise it is a non-issue.

My first job actually coding as a programmer was for a company working in the field. You could fax them an order, with a string like AGGGCTATCGGTACG and they would produce it and ship it out. Pretty cool seeing a desktop machine with bottles labelled A, C, G, T that fed into it. Anyway, I learned a lot about genetic engineering there - I actually wrote the code that analyzed and displayed the enzyme analysis (showing where each particular enzyme would break the chain).

The first thing I would say is that if someone says something like "they're putting fish genes in plants", the person has no clue and is probably talking FUD. Genes are what make organisms, not the other way around. Saying "fish gene" is the equivalent of saying "fish carbon atom" or "fish water molecule".

Genetic engineering is basically doing the same thing we've been doing for millenia only with more understanding and ability to test. I'm all for genetic modification - in general.

That being said, corporations are using the patent system to screw things up. I'm sure we've all heard about the evils of Monsanto and how they're attacking farmers inappropriately. If not, do some searching.

I'm all for labeling. IMHO there should be a private organization to do that, like for Kosher foods. We know we can't trust any government to do it properly - look at how they've screwed up 'organic' - allowing certain chemicals and up to certain concentrations that any reasonable person would find unacceptable for that designation.

This is pretty much my opinion. There are societal implications of GMO food but healthwise it is a non-issue.

I, too, was giving the issue a lesser concern, util I saw the video on sows going through false pregnancies and the farmer who owned said sows went bankrupt.

It sounds like it was a fungal contamination. Most likely a strain of fusarium developed resistance to the pesticides and was able to outcompete all other (non-resistant) microorganisms until it reached toxic levels and was producing some estrogen receptor agonist that messed with the pigs. So the problem is not with the genetics, per se, but is similar to what happens in your gut if you overuse antibiotics. This "antibiotic" overuse was facilitated by the use of pesticide-resistant (gmo) crops. I wonder what happens if you feed the same pigs soy.

Also eating the same thing all the time can't be good for these pigs. A diverse diet may have prevented this problem.

It sounds like it was a fungal contamination. Most likely a strain of fusarium developed resistance to the pesticides and was able to outcompete all other (non-resistant) microorganisms until it reached toxic levels and was producing some estrogen receptor agonist that messed with the pigs. So the problem is not with the genetics, per se, but is similar to what happens in your gut if you overuse antibiotics. This "antibiotic" overuse was facilitated by the use of pesticide-resistant (gmo) crops. I wonder what happens if you feed the same pigs soy.

Also eating the same thing all the time can't be good for these pigs. A diverse diet may have prevented this problem.

I can't imagine any pig farmer feeding their pregnant, or not, sows nothing but corn. Remember, the surrounding pig farmers suffered the same faith with their sows.

Rosman believes the problem manifested itself on his farm because he planted 100 percent of the same brand of seed corn and feeds 100 percent of that corn to his livestock. His sample, in effect, was undiluted. "We got nailed really hard because we're a small operation feeding 100 percent of our own corn," he says. "If somebody sends 15,000 to 20,000 tons of this stuff to an elevator and somebody gets a blast of it, it could hit their units for a week or 10 days and then it's over."

I have to say that every study should be recording and reporting what they do. This is excellent. There is actually info here. If they had done more than two doses and more than two timepoints this would be the greatest study ever.

So after a little more investigation I would say that the monsanto research I have seen is good for what it is (as long as it is not made up) but really, really incomplete. They need to look at later time points (even do multiple generations), use positive controls (feed animals contaminated food), and assess cognition. And, of course, their results need to be verified by a non-monsanto group. Also, farmers should demand studies on pigs before feeding it to pigs, humans should want to see studies in primates before choosing to eat it, etc. Even though I don't think there is good reason to be wary, anything is possible in biology.

Finally, the anti-GMO crowd appears to produces really crap research which is only hurting their cause. Personally I consider monsanto's behaviour pretty evil as far as companies go, and would like to see some actual investigation into what they are doing. I don't see why these companies (pharma as well) get to keep their research secret on products they already have patents on.